1. education
2. english as a second language

Vocabulary instruction in 7th grade English classes
Abstract
This article presents and compares two examples of vocabulary instruction used in 7th grade
English lessons in Norway. The study is qualitative, based on classroom observations and
teacher interviews with the teachers’ own in-depth explanations about their practices. The
focus is on the teachers’ beliefs and practices, i.e. their cognition, connected to the teaching
and learning of vocabulary. The types of vocabulary instruction studied include ways of using
the textbook, factors deciding the use of the first language (L1) or second language (L2),
learner–learner and teacher–learner interaction, in addition to ways of presenting new
vocabulary. The findings suggest reliance on teacher-selected, decontextualised vocabulary
and use of only some of the vocabulary teaching options available.
Introduction
The position of English as a medium for international communication is generally accepted in
the Norwegian curriculum, The Knowledge Promotion 2006. Developing a large vocabulary
size is therefore as important as ever. The need for young learners to be able to continually
develop their competence in the language from the time they start until they finish school, is
also generally acknowledged in this and other educational documents, such as in Språk åpner
dører (revised 2007). In this official document from The Norwegian Ministry of Education
and Research, both early language learning and research on language teaching in the
classroom are aspects that are encouraged. Only recently has a number of areas about the
language learning of young learners and Norwegian primary teaching of English become the
subject of research. These areas range from classrom practices to learners’ language
development, teacher cognition, and assessment, including subtopics such as reading,
grammar, phonological competence and vocabulary (Hasselgreen, Drew & Sørheim, 2012).
Two of these studies investigated young learner vocabulary development. Langeland (2012)
found that both productive and receptive vocabulary developed unevenly from grade 5 to 7 in
her data. Helness (2012) studied productive vocabulary and found no difference in lexical
density (lexically dense texts have a high proportion of content words as opposed to
grammatical words and lexical variation (a type/token ration indicating range in vocabulary)
between 7th graders and 10th graders, both groups assessed to be at the A2 level on the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) scale. Studies into
teachers’ reported practices suggest that vocabulary teaching in primary school is traditional
in the sense that it includes frequent use of language-focused teaching, for example by using a
1
textbook and having vocabulary tests (Drew, 2004; Hestetræet, 2012a). Further, in a survey
about teacher beliefs and practices about vocabulary teaching and learning, reported beliefs
about learning and using vocabulary in context received high scores, while reported practices
about extensive reading received a low score (Hestetræet, 2012a). Based on this same survey,
a categorisation of vocabulary activities teachers report that they have used and considered to
be working well showed that language-focused activities constituted the highest scoring
category. Thus far, then, young language learner vocabulary studies include vocabulary
development and reported teacher beliefs and practices. Studying teachers’ beliefs and
practices about vocabulary instruction contributes to the existing research by also including
classroom observation and teacher interviews about the teachers’ beliefs and practices.
The aim of the present study, thereby, is to study and compare two examples of vocabulary
instruction used in 7th grade English lessons. The research questions are as follows:

How do the teachers use the textbook?

When and why do the teachers and the learners use the first language (L1) and the
second language (L2)?

What types of classroom interaction do the teachers practise? How is new vocabulary
introduced?
Teacher cognition
Teacher cognition is defined by Borg (2003) as “what language teachers think, know and
believe and the relationships of these mental constructs to what teachers do in the language
classroom” (p. 81). The aim of studying teacher cognition is therefore to study the complex
relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their practices, but also to study the unobservable
mental lives of teachers. Research on teacher cognition (e.g. Borg, 2006) is influenced by
Shulman’s concept of pedagogical content knowledge, explained by Shulman (1986) as
“subject matter knowledge for teaching” (p. 9). It covers the ways in which teachers’ content
knowledge, knowledge in their minds, is made teachable.
Teacher cognition in language education is a growing field (Andrews, 2007; Borg, 2006,
2009; Freeman & Richards, 1996; Woods, 1996). Grammar teaching is the most studied area
(Borg, 2003, 2009), but also reading and writing have received attention. General findings
suggest that prior language learning experiences have an impact on teacher cognition and that
2
the relationship between beliefs and practices is both complex and mutually informing
(Basturkmen, 2012; Borg, 2003, 2009; Woods, 1996). For example, studies into cognition
about grammar teaching suggest that teachers chose communicative techniques over the
formal instruction techniques they had experienced themselves (Borg, 2003; Woods, 1996).
Non-correspondence between beliefs and practice may indicate that contextual constraints are
preventing teachers from carrying out their beliefs in practice (Basturkmen, 2012; Borg,
2009). Teacher cognition research into speaking, listening and vocabulary is sparse. In a
Norwegian setting, studies have been conducted into the learning and teaching of vocabulary
among young learners (Hestetræet, 2012a, 2012b).
A distinction is made in teacher cognition between beliefs and knowledge. Woods (2003)
views the constructs of knowledge and beliefs as being at the opposite ends of a continuum
where the former is “the more publicly accepted, factual, demonstrable and objectively
defined elements” and the latter “the more idiosyncratic, subjective and more identity-related
elements” (p. 206). Thus knowledge is seen as objective, verifiable and collective, whereas
beliefs are viewed as subjective, unverifiable and individual. The boundary between the two is
seen as flexible and fuzzy.
Vocabulary instruction
Vocabulary constitutes the building blocks of language, and is therefore essential in L2
learning. There is general agreement among vocabulary researchers that vocabulary
instruction should have a balance between explicit and implicit ways of teaching (Nation,
2001; Schmitt, 2008). Whereas explicit approaches involve conscious learning and the direct
study of words, implicit methods embrace subconscious learning through continuous exposure
to and meaningful use of the target language. Within communicative language teaching, the
latter approach has received particular focus, as language learning is seen as learning to
communicate (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983; Richards & Rogers, 2001). Here meaningful
communication is characterised by contextualisation: new language items are used in a real
and meaningful context to promote their learning (Richards & Smith, 2010). In the case of
vocabulary, this means that the applied context will give valuable information about the new
words, supporting the understanding of meaning as well as how words appear together in
chunks and how the meaning of words may change with different contexts. In this manner
learners can guess the meanings of unfamiliar words from context, described by Nation
(2008) as “the most important of all vocabulary learning strategies” (p. 64), e.g. through
3
extensive reading. The strategy of guessing meaning from context thus deserves to be taught,
for example by looking at contextual clues of unfamiliar words, in order for the learners to
practise and learn this strategy. In contrast, decontextualisation or decontextualised learning
“occurs when learners give attention to a language item as part of the language rather than as
part of the message” (Nation, 2001, p. 64). This is a way of noticing new vocabulary by
removing it from its context in order to give it attention. Examples of decontextualisation
include learner–learner or teacher–learner negotiation, and teacher explanation by providing a
definition, a synonym or a translation into the L1. Negotiation of meaning is explained by
Ellis (2008) as “interactional work to secure mutual understanding” (p.973). Examples
include “comprehension checks and requests for clarification”. There are studies that show
that both negotiation and teacher explanation increase vocabulary learning (Elley, 1989; Ellis,
Tanaka & Yamazaki, 1994; Nation, 1982; Newton, 1995, cited in Nation, 2001, pp. 64–65).
Both learners who participate in the negotiation and those who observe it, are reported to
learn from it (e.g. Ellis, Tanaka & Yamazaki,1994). Teacher explanation by providing a L1
translation of words may be a fast way of learning them for some learners (Nation, 1982, cited
in Nation 2001, p. 66). However, instruction including negotiation and teacher explanations
functions best when brief, so as not to interfere with the story or communication task given. In
the present study the concept of negotiation of meaning also reflects the discussion to arrive at
the meaning of words in teacher–learner interaction when the teacher introduces unknown
words to the learner.
Together with noticing, retrieval and creative use are important processes that support the
remembering of words and that may be encouraged through vocabulary instruction (Nation,
2001, pp. 63–68). Retrieval of words may be receptive, involving retention of meaning by
reading or listening, or productive, involving retention through communication by speaking or
writing. Retrieval is not simply repetition; retention of what the learners know of a word’s
meaning is also necessary (Baddeley, 1990, cited in Nation 2001, p. 67). Still, repetition as
well as recycling, which involves reusing words in new contexts so as to learn how meaning
changes with context, support retrieval. Creative or generative use is the receptive or
productive use of known words in ways that are different from before, causing learners to
enhance and broaden their knowledge. This may involve both inflection, collocation,
reference and meaning.
The communicative view of language learning is reflected in the competence objectives after
year 7 in the Norwegian Knowledge Promotion curriculum (LK06) of 2006, for example for
4
learners to be able to express themselves “in writing and orally to obtain help in
understanding and being understood” (LK06 English subject curriculum, year 7). In addition,
a balance between explicit and implicit ways of learning and teaching vocabulary are
expressed in the curriculum. An example of explicit learning of vocabulary includes to
“identify some linguistic similarities and differences between English and the native
language”. To “express an opinion on various topics” and to “read and understand texts of
varying lengths and in various genres” are examples of implicit ways. The learners are not
only expected to learn and understand words and expressions, but also to become acquainted
with different strategies for learning them.
Use of the L1 to translate unfamiliar words has already been mentioned as an example of
teacher explanation. In communicative language teaching, careful and reasonable use of the
L1 is accepted, although maximum use of the L2 is encouraged. Generally, the L1 and
translation may be used when supporting L2 development (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983, p.
92; Nation, 1997, 2003). Research indicates that there is considerable variation when it comes
to teachers’ L1 use in the classroom, ranging from no or little use to extensive use (Duff &
Polio 1990; Ellis, 2012; Macaro, 2001). Thus there is evidence of code-switching. Functions
that L1 use serves include classroom management, grammar instruction, showing empathy
and solidarity, translating unknown words to solve comprehension problems and to respond to
interaction in the L1 (Polio & Duff, 1994). Research into the teachers’ beliefs and practices
about L2 use shows that there is a gap between the ideal and the reality (Ellis, 2012). Some
studies mention that teachers feel a sense of guilt for using the L1 (Hall & Cook, 2012).
Learners’ use of L1 serves interpersonal functions, for example as social talk or private
speech. It also has a function in metatalk and solving problems (Ellis, 2012).
In a Norwegian context there is little research on how much teachers use Norwegian in
classroom interaction. However, in a survey of English teaching in Norwegian primary
schools Drew (2004) found that 68% of the teachers reported that they used mainly English
when interacting in class, while 28% claimed that they mainly used Norwegian. Cameron
(2001, p. 85) is critical of the immediate translation of new words and claims that it takes
away the mental work necessary for the learners to conceptualise and remember their
meaning. Thus the learners’ need and motivation to do so are also removed. This claim is
based on the deep processing hypothesis, formulated by Craik and Lockhart (1972), which
states that “the more one engages with a word (deeper processing), the more likely the word
will be remembered for later use” (Schmitt, 2000, p. 121). The implication involved for
5
vocabulary instruction would be to use L1 translation carefully, and use various techniques
for explaining words, as learners’ involvement in figuring out the meaning requires more
mental work and may lead to better retrieval.
Developing a large vocabulary is important in order to be able to understand and use a second
language as effectively as possible. The gap in vocabulary size between native speakers and
L2 learners may illustrate the need for teaching high frequency vocabulary (Cameron, 2001;
Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2008). The estimated vocabulary sizes of native speakers are around
5,000 word families for 5 year-olds starting school and 20,000 for educated adults. Research
on the vocabulary size of L2 learners, in contrast, reports findings ranging from 1,000 to
4,000, including both school children and university students. This may indicate that there is a
gap of at least 4,000 words between L1 and L2 users that needs to be compensated for.
However, although there is disagreement about the way in which this should be done, Nation
suggests explicit teaching of high frequency words, which is fast and thereby speeds up the
process. Low frequency, more sophisticated words are best learnt implicitly, as there is no
way of teaching all the words in a language directly, since direct teaching is highly timeconsuming. As many as 6,000–7,000 word families may be needed for unassisted
comprehension of spoken English and 8,000–9,000 word families of written English in order
to understand 98% of the words in a text (Nation, 2006). This is believed to be the best
condition for being able to guess the meaning of the remaining unfamiliar words. By helping
the learners develop a larger vocabulary, the direct teaching of high frequency words may
support implicit learning through exposure, for example through extensive reading and
listening to stories (Nation, 2001, 2008).
Norwegian learners of English may also be in need of a larger vocabulary. Several studies by
Hellekjær have indicated that Norwegian students encounter problems when reading English
textbooks at university, due to lack of vocabulary and reading skills (Hellekjær, 2009).
Hellekjær (2009) suggests that the heavy reliance on textbooks in English lessons in school
may partly be to blame for this. Heavy reliance on using the textbook is also reported in
surveys about the teaching of English by primary school teachers (Drew, 2004; Hestetræet,
2012a). The use of textbooks supports vocabulary learning, but it often constitutes intensive,
detailed reading where the focus may be said to be on understanding all the words. It can
therefore be said to be an example of explicit learning. The glossary lists frequently supplied
in textbooks also support explicit learning of vocabulary. Heavy reliance on textbooks
therefore needs to be balanced with implicit learning through exposure where the focus is on
6
meaning and not on language, for example through extensive reading and listening to stories
(Nation, 2001; 2008).
Within the communicative framework, interaction is seen as essential in the development of
an L2 (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983, p. 93). Interaction, either between the teacher and
learners, or between learners, means using the target language to communicate for meaningful
purposes, and in this way learn vocabulary. Generally, the focus is on content, but it may also
occasionally be on language items. Richards and Lockhart (1996) stress the importance of
pair work in the L2 classroom in developing linguistic and communicative competence. Pair
work provides the learners with “motivating opportunities for using and learning the new
language”, and, in contrast to whole-class teaching, the situation of pair work is nonthreatening to the learners (Richards & Lockhart, 1996, p. 152). Consequently, the teacher’s
role becomes more one of facilitating the learners’ communication, and is therefore less
teacher-centred. In whole-class teaching, teacher–learner interaction often involves the
teacher asking questions. These may be genuine questions, in which the teacher asks the
learners for answers she does not know in advance, e.g. What countries would you like to
visit?, or display questions, in which she asks for answers she already knows, e.g. asking
about information found in a textbook (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). Genuine questions are
believed to support real communication, as they encourage learners to express their own
opinions and feelings.
Several studies of vocabulary instruction in the classroom report that what teachers do “does
not take account of the full range of options suggested by theory and research” (Nation, 2001,
p. 74). For example, Sanaoui (1996), who studied vocabulary instruction among adult L2
learners of French in Canada, introduced a range of variables to observe and describe
vocabulary instruction. Whereas planned vocabulary instruction was planned in advance by
the teacher, spontaneous vocabulary teaching occured spontaneously in class. Other variables
included lexical items selected prior to the lesson or not, and whether the selection was
controlled by the teachers or the learners. Sanaoui’s findings, for example, were that the
teachers taught the semantic aspects of vocabulary, i.e. meaning, and not other aspects, such
as grammar, discourse and sociolinguistics.
7
Materials and methods
The qualitative methodology chosen for this study was a three-stage combination of preobservation interviews, classroom observation and follow-up interviews. The materials thus
included classroom observation of and interviews with two 7th grade English teachers. Both
teachers in the sample volunteered to be informants for this study; teacher A through a
questionnaire survey about teacher cognition about vocabulary teaching that she participated
in (Hestetræet 2012a, 2012b), and teacher B through the head of his school, who was
approached and subsequently expressed willingness to participate in the study. They were
both observed for three 45 minute lessons, which was the number of English lessons the
classes had per week.
The beliefs and practices about vocabulary instruction of the two teachers were studied and
compared. The teachers were interviewed once before and once after classroom observation
was completed. The interviews lasted from 30 to 60 minutes. Both teacher A (female) and
teacher B (male) were in their early forties, and had studied English at university (college)
level (90 and 60 STP, respectively). They were both experienced teachers. Whereas teacher A
was a native speaker of Norwegian, teacher B was a native speaker of English. Both the
classroom observation and the teacher interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed.
Fieldnotes were written during the observation, and I was given copies of texts and tasks used
in the classroom. Class A, taught by teacher A, consisted of 18 learners, and was the only 7th
grade in a 1–7 school with 160 learners. Class B, taught by teacher B, comprised 21 learners
and was one of three 7th grade classes in a 1–7 school with 400 learners. In both classes the
learners were seated in groups of four or five.
The interviews were carried out as a combination of semi-structured and stimulated recall
interviews. An interview guide with a list of primarily open-ended questions was used as a
starting point for the pre-observation part of the semi-structured interviews. The questions
covered the three main areas of education, teaching and the school. Questions about education
included topics such as what the teachers remembered from their own language learning in
school and at university, why they became English teachers and what factors they think may
have influenced their way of teaching English. Similarly, they were asked about their
approach to teaching English, how they taught vocabulary and what they emphasised in their
teaching, and how they thought the learners best developed their vocabulary. Finally, they
8
were asked about what approach to English teaching was promoted at their school, what
materials they had and if and how they collaborated with the other English teachers.
The list of questions was not comprehensive, but rather a basis for a flexible dialogue that
developed along the way. In a similar way, the post-interviews were flexible, based on
questions from the classroom observation. The teachers were asked to elaborate on and
explain instances related to vocabulary teaching and learning that occurred during the
observation. These included elaboration on the use of vocabulary tests, how and by whom
vocabulary was chosen, the use of spoken English and Norwegian, and the use of translation
and extensive reading. The uses of vocabulary tests and extensive reading do not form part of
the research questions for this study, but are nevertheless relevant, both here and more
generally. For example, vocabulary tests may include use of the first language, and extensive
reading may be seen as complementing intensive reading, or the use of textbooks. The
classroom observation also focused on similar instances of vocabulary instruction.
All of the interviews were conducted in Norwegian, as that was the working language of the
two teachers studied. Excerpts used for this article, based on transcripts of the audiorecordings, were translated into English by the researcher. During the interviews the aim was
to develop a dialogue between the teachers and the interviewer. It was emphasised that the
interviewer was not there to assess the lessons, but to collect data.
Findings
Teacher A
Using the textbook
Teacher A used a textbook as the basis for texts in class. The learners read the text aloud in
pairs. They were regularly asked to read textbook texts aloud at home, at least three times
each. They also listened to CD-recordings of these texts in class, or the teacher read them out
loud. The textbook that was used in that school had, due to financial reasons, not been
replaced by a new edition after the introduction of the LK06 curriculum. It was therefore
based on the previous curriculum, L97. The teacher expressed some concern over this and
described the textbook as old, although she said there was little difference in content between
the edition they used and the new one. She also mentioned that a textbook had been used
when she herself was in school, and that they never read any books in English.
9
Teacher A says the following about the learners reading texts as their homework:
It is important that they read aloud, because they should hear themselves speak English. In a
45 minute English lesson they don’t get to hear themselves speak that much…. It is because
they feel more secure when they read at home….
… reflect some more on the words, and choose some. Their homework is to choose which
words to have….
Here reading aloud is seen as a way of rehearsing speaking and therefore becoming more
secure, probably when both speaking and reading aloud in school. There is some degree of
personalisation on the part of the learners, as they are asked to choose new words to learn.
Use of L1 and L2
Teacher A predominantly used English when speaking in class, both in whole-class sessions
and when talking to learners individually or in pairs or groups. When asked about her own
language learning experiences, teacher A conveyed that her English teacher in school spoke in
Norwegian a lot. Teacher A used Norwegian translations to explain new vocabulary during
negotiation with the learners about their meaning. The learners spoke English in pairs when
they were given oral tasks. They sometimes answered in Norwegian, particularly in wholeclass sessions. The comparison of a cat with a kangaroo (see example in the next section
about classroom interaction) is an example of spontaneous L1 use, enabling the learner to tell
his story.
Teacher A reports the following about encouraging her learners to speak English in pairs:
…try to encourage them so that we speak English and try to have them do it in small settings,
too. Scary for many in big class contexts.
Being in the language… to bathe a little in language, that’s the best way to learn
These examples reflect both the encouragement to use spoken English, the use of small, nonthreatening settings, and of exposure to the English language, without excluding the use of the
L1.
Classroom interaction
Class A had examples of whole-class sessions with teacher-learner interactions led by the
teacher. Some of the topics were diseases and marsupials, based on a theme in a textbook text
about Australia. The teacher introduced these terms both orally and on the blackboard, as well
as some examples, such as flu, influenza, swine flu, bird flu, I’ve got a temperature. The
10
learners were asked what the words meant, but they also contributed with examples. Thus
there was negotiation and explanation of word meaning, initiated by the teacher. Some of the
vocabulary was planned and controlled by the teacher prior to the lesson, but some of it also
appeared spontaneously in class and was controlled by the learners. Learner–learner
interaction occurred several times, for example when the learners were asked to carry out
information-gap activities about diseases, and flying to destinations in Australia. The teacher
primarily asked display questions based on the textbook, such as How big are the biggest
kangaroos?, but also asked some genuine questions. One example is when, during wholeclass interaction, she pointed to a picture of kangaroos:
T: What are the kangaroos doing?…
P: Tarzan [his/the pupil’s cat] hopper samla på fire bein, som ein kenguru!
T: You know what the kangaroo looks like when jumping, then!
The genuine question about what the kangaroos were doing prompted a spontaneous response
from one of the boys, who wanted to tell the class about his cat that could jump on all four
legs, just like a kangaroo, albeit expressed in Norwegian. This is an example of
communication for real purposes. The teacher responded in English, accepting and supporting
his contribution. This episode is also an illustration of the teacher’s response to the learner’s
use of Norwegian: The content was accepted, and the teacher continued in English.
New vocabulary
In class A, some of the new vocabulary was planned and selected by the teacher prior to class,
based on the textbook, as shown in the examples above about diseases and marsupials when
the teacher presented and wrote the words on the blackboard. However, some of the
vocabulary was also selected spontaneously by the learners when they were asked to give
examples. There was teacher–learner negotiation of word meaning when the learners were
asked what the new words meant. Although the new words were chosen from a text, this
entire session was decontextualized, as the meaning of the new words and not the content of
the text was in focus. Occasionally grammar and chunks were pointed out, e.g. the plural form
of diseases and the expression I’ve got a temperature. The teacher also asked if there were
other words that were difficult, inviting a dialogue, but at the same time associating new
vocabulary with difficult vocabulary.
11
The topic of diseases was repeated in pairs in the vocabulary activity What’s the matter, in
which pictures of ill people were to be matched with suitable chunks, such as She’s got a cold
and They’ve got a toothache. A follow-up activity was to practise a dialogue at the doctor’s
about what the patient must do. Here the learners were given some clues about what to do
(e.g. take an aspirin), but had to choose the matching illnesses themselves. For these activities
the vocabulary was mostly selected a priori, as it was given, but with some room for
spontaneous selection. The activities also allowed for some recycling, but more repetition
than retrieval, as many of the expressions were given.
Class A had vocabulary tests (‘gloseprøve’) regularly. The vocabulary for these was selected
from the textbook and written down in a separate vocabulary book (‘glosebok’) by each
individual learner. Teacher A was also used to studying vocabulary explitly in similar ways to
this, but then the vocabulary was teacher selected. In this study, after having studied the
words, the learners swapped books and wrote vocabulary tests for one another. This way of
doing it allowed for vocabulary selection by the learners, but also some personalisation as the
learners chose words that they felt the need to learn.
Teacher B
Using the textbook
Teacher B used a textbook as the basis for texts in class, and the learners read and translated
the texts aloud in pairs. These texts also served as a basis for short dictations that the teacher
presented to the learners on the Smartboard and asked them to write down and subsequently
translate from English to Norwegian. CD sound files of textbook texts were available
electronically for the learners to listen to.
Use of L1 and L2
In general, teacher B switched between English and Norwegian a good deal. He translated
both text and information into Norwegian after having presented it in English first. In the
post-observation interview the teacher explained that he tries to speak English as much as
possible, and then translate into Norwegian. The learners spoke English in pairs when given
oral tasks. One example was when they made written questions from a text about Louis
Braille and afterwards walked around in the classroom to find partners to ask the questions to.
Although these were display questions with correct answers in the text, they nevertheless
prompted the use of English.
12
Teacher B explains why he asks the learners to translate English texts into Norwegian in the
following way:
So in a way… to check that they’ve understood it in English. That they translate into
Norwegian. And if they translate into Norwegian they’ve understood it.
This indicates a belief that translation supports understanding. It may also be seen to suggest a
belief that it is the teacher’s role to check that the learners have understood all the English
words. It may also reflect a detailed, intensive reading of texts, where the focus is on
understanding the language. What is more, it may also demonstrate a belief that understanding
a text equals being able to translate it into the L1. Thus the L1 is used to understand the
meaning of L2 text.
Classroom interaction
In class B there were also several examples of whole-class sessions with teacher–learner
interaction. One of these was about the shapes, colours and functions of traffic signs. The
teacher mostly asked display questions, inviting the learners to identify the signs, for example
when pointing to pictures and asking What shape is that? Thus the responses from the learners
were short: It’s a triangle/it’s a square/it’s a circle. As mentioned above, it was when the
learners participated in learner–learner interaction in pairs that they spoke English.
New vocabulary
New English vocabulary was presented as underlined high frequency verbs in the dictation
that the learners were asked to translate into Norwegian. This dictation and these words were
planned and selected by the teacher prior to the lesson. The learners were also asked to make
sentences using the underlined verbs. In the reading and translation process, the learners were
asked to try to understand new words in the following order: first try to understand from
context, then consult the word list in the textbook or a dictionary, then ask peers or, finally,
ask the teacher, which was a familiar procedure to the learners in Norwegian lessons. This
way of guessing meaning from context, in addition to independent use of dictionaries
(supplied in the classroom), was thus encouraged. During the observation it was noted that the
learners often asked one another in the groups, or asked the teacher, sometimes even the
researcher, about the meaning of unfamiliar words encountered in the text. These were
examples of negotiation of meaning with peers and the teacher. Similarly, they often asked for
the English translation of Norwegian words, such as telt (tent) and farlig (dangerous), when
writing individual texts about Aliens or Desert Island, based on a picture book that supplied
13
relevant vocabulary. This illustrates the learners’ need to find, understand and learn new
vocabulary.
When asked about his own foreign language learning in school, teacher B emphasised that
they had a lot of grammar and that they also studied vocabulary explicitly and had vocabulary
tests, with approximately 10 new words a week. He pointed out that this way of learning was
a negative experience for him.
Teacher B comments on this when he explains the following about how the learners’ are
encouraged to understand the meaning of unfamiliar words:
They’re very good at raising their hands and ask what it means. And then … they can read the
text first and see if they can find out what it means from the context in the sentence. And then
they have to think a little…
Many of them skip that part. They consult the word list or the back of the book to try and find
out. And in the end they ask me.
On the one hand, this explanation suggests that guessing meaning from context is seen to be
very important, along with being able to individually find the meaning by consulting aids. On
the other hand, the teacher’s description also implies that there is a need among the learners
for spontaneous vocabulary and to negotiate meaning with the teacher.
Discussion
The comparison of the two teachers’ examples of vocabulary instruction revealed both
similarities and differences in their beliefs and practices. Both teachers use a textbook as a
basis for texts in class, although they also report occasional use of extensive reading.
According to teacher A, textbook use was also part of her prior language learning experience.
Such intensive reading supports vocabulary learning by allowing for some contextualisation,
receptive retrieval and receptive use of new and unfamiliar vocabulary. Relying strongly on
intensive reading, however, may cause too much focus on understanding all the words, which
does not sufficiently allow for guessing meaning from context. In order to develop a large
vocabulary through guessing meaning from context, learners also need to be exposed to low
frequency words, which is more likely to happen the more exposed they are to frequent
listening to stories and extensive reading of different types of text and of different lengths.
Textbook texts are chosen by the teacher, and therefore, indirectly, the vocabulary is chosen
prior to the lessons, even though learners in class A individually choose their own vocabulary
14
within these texts. When it comes to reading texts out loud, this may be seen as more of a way
to practise pronunciation than using vocabulary meaningfully, depending on for which
purpose the text is to be read aloud. It may thus be argued that this way of reading text is
primarily decontextualised, with more attention to the words and therefore the language than
the message (Nation, 2001; 2006). The focus on intensive reading is even stronger in class B
with the translation of these texts into Norwegian.
Code-switching between the L2 and the L1 was used in both classrooms in this study.
Whereas the teaching in class A was predominantly in English, the teaching in class B was
characterised by code-switching between Norwegian and English, including frequent
translation into Norwegian. Careful use of the L1 is seen as supporting both language learning
(Ellis, 2013; Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983) and vocabulary learning through
decontextualisation and translation (Nation, 2001), but maximum use of the L2 is encouraged.
In this study the functions of teacher L1 use included explanation and translation of
vocabulary, as well as classroom management. Teacher A expressed the belief of bathing the
learners in the L2 and of supporting small settings. The classroom practice reflected this, but
also included instances of code-switching, both among the teacher and the learners,
illustrating some tension between beliefs and practice. Teacher A’s belief and practice seemed
to be in contrast to her own prior language learning experience, where the teacher frequently
used the L1. This may have been one of the factors that have influenced her understanding
that heavy L1 use is not optimal for language learning. Teacher B articulated a belief in
translation, mainly from L2 to L1, to support understanding. Thus the L1 was used for
translation purposes in classroom B. The L1 was also used on its own, for information. In this
manner the L1 was used considerably, with the functions of translation and classroom
management. The instance of spontaneous L1 use in classroom A, where a learner compared a
kangaroo to his cat, may be seen as illustrating the function of social talk. From a vocabulary
learning point of view, maximum L2 use is to be encouraged, as it is through a balance
between explicit and implicit instruction that new vocabulary can be retrieved and used
creatively to support consolidation and reconceptualisation of form, meaning and use.
However, L1 use serves some important functions, both in the language classroom and in
vocabulary learning (Ellis, 2012; Nation, 1997, 2003). These include classroom management,
grammar instruction, expressing empathy, and social talk and private speech. Nation (2003)
emphasises that the L1 is an efficient tool for communicating meaning. Still, extensive use of
15
translation may take away the mental work and motivation necessary for conceptualising and
remembering vocabulary (Cameron, 2001; Schmitt, 2000).
The teacher–learner interaction in both school A and school B showed lack of genuine
questions, with the exception of a few instances in class A. The use of genuine questions
encourages the learners to express their views and opinions (Lightbown & Spada, 2006), and
therefore supports creative and spontaneous use of vocabulary. In the use of display questions,
on the other hand, the vocabulary is primarily controlled by the teacher. In both classrooms
the seating arrangements in groups of four or five encouraged interaction between the
learners. In both classrooms the use of oral tasks in pairs prompted maximum L2 use, with
uninterrupted exchanges of dialogue in English. This is an example of how the use of
meaning-focused tasks in non-threatening situations supports both the use of the L2 and the
retrieval and creative use of vocabulary (Nation, 2001; Richards & Lockhart, 1996; Richards
& Rogers, 2001).
Both teachers primarily used a textbook as the source for new vocabulary for the learners. In
this manner, most of the vocabulary was chosen by the teacher prior to the lessons, even
though the learners in class A chose their own personalised vocabulary within the texts. In
class A the learners discussed and in this way negotiated the meaning of new words chosen
and presented by the teacher, but were also invited to come up with spontaneous examples.
These learners thereby contributed to noticing and increasing their own vocabulary (Nation,
2001). Even though this vocabulary was decontextualised, there was a teacher–learner
dialogue around it. In class B, the translation of verbs and text from English into Norwegian
indicated both a focus on grammar and on the importance of understanding all of the words.
Teacher B expressed a negative prior language learning experience with a grammartranslation approach. This may have been one of the factors to influence his own teaching, as
elements of it seem to be echoing this approach. In the translation process in class B the
learners were encouraged to guess meaning from context, but discouraged from negotiating
meaning with the teacher. Even though guessing meaning from context is the most important
vocabulary strategy of all (Nation, 2006), it is not at the exclusion of other strategies. Both
extensive use of translation and discouragement of dialogues with the teacher may be seen as
hindering communicative use of the L2 in the classroom (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983). One
of the most important observations in this classroom was the learners’ eagerness to learn new
vocabulary, for example through the interaction with the teacher. This motivating need is a
strength that could be developed communicatively in this class. In both classrooms there were
16
examples of vocabulary being retrieved and used creatively through communicative tasks, and
through writing tasks in class B, thus supporting vocabulary development.
To sum up, teacher A’s vocabulary instruction may be described as aiming to expose and
involve the learners in the L2 in a non-threatening way. Teacher B’s instruction may be seen
as primarily focusing on checking that the learners understand the meaning of words. Both
teachers described their own teaching in similar ways in the interviews.
Conclusion
The findings of this study show a predominance of the use of textbook-based vocabulary
instruction and the use of the L1 for vocabulary explanation, translation and classroom
management. These uses and the beliefs underpinning them may have been influenced by
prior language learning experiences, possibly causing the teachers to choose either similar or
different instruction. The results confirm those of other studies that show that teachers do not
use the full range of vocabulary teaching options available (Nation, 2001; Sanaoui, 1996) and
that prior language learning experience influences language instruction (Borg, 2003; Woods,
1996). This study indicates a high degree of use of decontextualised teacher-selected
vocabulary. Thus there is a need for balancing this with more learner-selected, contextualised
vocabulary, for example through extensive reading and listening, along with spontaneous,
creative and meaning-focused use of vocabulary to support the development, recycling and
consolidation of large vocabulary sizes among the learners. The study also shows that both of
the teachers primarily teach word meaning and some grammar, and hardly any discoursal and
sociolinguistic aspects of use, a similar finding to that reported by Sanaoui (1996). The
reliance on textbooks as a basis for texts, also reported by Drew (2004), Hellekjær (2009) and
Hestetræet (2012a), suggests that there is a need for more extensive reading and listening to
support meaning-focused development of the learners’ vocabulary sizes. Little is yet known
about the vocabulary instruction that takes place in Norwegian primary classrooms. More
research is therefore needed to further study teachers’ beliefs and practices in this field, both
about the variables studied here, and others, such as for example implicit vocabulary teaching
through reading and listening, vocabulary learning strategies, and the assessment of written
vocabulary.
17
References
Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge: CUP.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what
language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education. Research and Practice.
London: Continuum.
Burns, A. & Richards, J. C. (2009). The Cambridge Guide to Second Langauge Teacher
Education. Cambridge: CUP.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: CUP.
Drew, I. (2004). Survey of English teaching in Norwegian primary schools. Stavanger
University College: Læringssenteret.
Duff, P. & Polio, C. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language
classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154–66.
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Second Edition. Oxford: OUP.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language Teaching Research & Language Pedagogy. Oxford: WileyBlackwell.
Finocchiaro, M. & Brumfit, B. C. (1983). The Functional-Notional Approach. From Theory
to Practice. Oxford: OUP.
Freeman, D. & R., J.C. (1996). Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Hall, G. & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language
Teaching, (45)3, 271–308.
Hasselgreen, A., Drew, I. & Sørheim, B. (2012) (Eds.). The Young Language Learner.
Research-based Insights into Teaching and Learning. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Hellekjær, G. O. (2009). Academic English reading proficiency at the university level: A
Norwegian case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(2), 198–222.
Helness, H.L. (2012). A comparative study of the vocabulary of 7th and 10th graders in scripts
from the National Test of Writing in English. In A. Hasselgreen, I. Drew & B.
Sørheim (Eds.), The Young Language Learner. Research-based Insights into Teaching
and Learning. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Hestetræet, T. (2012a). Teacher cognition and the teaching and learning of EFL vocabulary.
In A. Hasselgreen, I. Drew & B. Sørheim (Eds.), The Young Language Learner.
Research-based Insights into Teaching and Learning. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Hestetræet, T. (2012b). Teaching vocabulary in the primary classroom. In A. Allström & A.
Pinter (Eds.), English for Young Learners – Forum. Proceedings from the Conference
in Uppsala 2012. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.
Knowledge Promotion 2006. English subject curriculum. Norwegian Ministry of Education
and Research.
Langeland, A. (2012). Investigating vocabulary development in English from grade 5 to grade
7 in a Norwegian primary school. In A. Hasselgreen, I. Drew & B. Sørheim (Eds.),
The Young Language Learner. Research-based Insights into Teaching and Learning.
Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages Are Learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: OUP.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers' codeswitching in foreign Language
classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, (85)4,
531–48.
Nation, I.S.P. (1997). L1 and L2 use in the classroom: a systematic approach. TESL Reporter,
(30)2, 19–27.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: CUP.
18
Nation, I.S.P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian-efljournal.com.
Nation, I.S.P. (2006). Teaching Vocabulary. Strategies and Techniques. Boston: Heinle.
Polio, C. & Duff, P. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language
classrooms: A qualitative analysis of and target language alternation. The Modern
Language Journal, (78)3, 313–26.
Richards, J.C. &. Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective Teaching in Second Langauge Classrooms.
Cambridge: CUP.
Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: CUP.
Richards, J.C. & Schmidt, R. (2001). Longman Dictionary of Language Teching & Applied
Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
Sanaoui, R. (1996). Processes of Vocabulary Instruction in 10 French as a Second Language
Classrooms. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52(2), 179–199.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning.
Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Språk åpner dører. Strategi for styrking av fremmedspråk i grunnopplæringen 2005–2009
(revidert 2007). Kunnskapsdepartementet.
Woods, D. (2003). The Social Construction of Beliefs in the Language Classroom. In Kalaja,
P. & Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New Research and Approaches.
Printed in the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
19